Page 106 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 106 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
103
comprises several arenas in which, through printed materials dealing with matters of culture, information, and entertainment, a conflict is fought out more or less discursively.” He concedes that the mass media has played an important role in restructuring the public sphere and that a political public sphere needs more than the institutional guarantees of the constitutional state. (Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” 453). Civil society now has a larger political impact through the mass media. He ends his reflection with a question for which he says he does not quite have the answer:
This is the question of whether, and to what extent, a public sphere dominated by the mass media provides a realistic chance for the members of civil society, in their competition with the political and economic invaders' media power, to bring about changes in the spectrum of values, topics, and reasons channeled by external influences, to open it up in an innovative way, and to screen it critically. (455)
Part of my attempt in this chapter is to answer this question. I argue that global civil society does indeed open up the public sphere. Before I do so, I would like to consider more recent work on the public sphere that has tried to bring new perspectives on the question.
In the collection of essays After Habermas (2004), various thinkers have tried to advance the discourse beyond Habermas. James Bohman in particular believes that the notions of the public sphere, publics and public reason need to be re-defined in light of the fact that today the Internet plays a major role in our lives. In “Expanding Dialogue,” Bohman develops the Habermasian idea of the pluralization of the public sphere further. He allows for the possibility of many publics and overlapping public spheres. There are not only many national public
Object Description
| Title | Negotiating pluralism and tribalism in liberal democratic societies |
| Author | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Author email | sadagopa@usc.edu; shobasadagopan@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Philosophy |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-22 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-15 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Lloyd, Sharon |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Dreher, John Keating, Gregory |
| Abstract | My aim in this dissertation is to enquire whether toleration as a practice is achievable. It is prior to the question of how it can be grounded as a virtue. I argue that in liberal democratic societies where there are struggles for recognition on the part of ethnocultural groups, it is possible to negotiate pluralism and tribalism in a way that a stable pluralist society can be maintained. My core thesis rests on a theory of interdependence based both on a theory of human nature and on the material fact of globalization. Insofar as we affirm our nature as human beings engaged in productive activity with other human beings, insofar as we value a world that facilitates that activity, toleration is desirable. It is achievable because with globalization there is a tendency towards homogenization that erodes cultural differences. There is less reason for conflict because what we have in common, our interdependence, goes far deeper than culture. A further sufficient condition may be found in well thought-out policies that are executed through education and dialogue. |
| Keyword | toleration; value pluralism; liberalism; cultural homogenization; globalization; common citizenship |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1658 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Sadagopan-2395 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Sadagopan-2395.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 106 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 103 comprises several arenas in which, through printed materials dealing with matters of culture, information, and entertainment, a conflict is fought out more or less discursively.” He concedes that the mass media has played an important role in restructuring the public sphere and that a political public sphere needs more than the institutional guarantees of the constitutional state. (Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” 453). Civil society now has a larger political impact through the mass media. He ends his reflection with a question for which he says he does not quite have the answer: This is the question of whether, and to what extent, a public sphere dominated by the mass media provides a realistic chance for the members of civil society, in their competition with the political and economic invaders' media power, to bring about changes in the spectrum of values, topics, and reasons channeled by external influences, to open it up in an innovative way, and to screen it critically. (455) Part of my attempt in this chapter is to answer this question. I argue that global civil society does indeed open up the public sphere. Before I do so, I would like to consider more recent work on the public sphere that has tried to bring new perspectives on the question. In the collection of essays After Habermas (2004), various thinkers have tried to advance the discourse beyond Habermas. James Bohman in particular believes that the notions of the public sphere, publics and public reason need to be re-defined in light of the fact that today the Internet plays a major role in our lives. In “Expanding Dialogue,” Bohman develops the Habermasian idea of the pluralization of the public sphere further. He allows for the possibility of many publics and overlapping public spheres. There are not only many national public |
